I personally have no clue what campaign promises he will keep or not. I just think he did the smartest thing possible, empower the white voter as the other side had a rather weak candidate that the other minority races, which make up the majority, could not back. Embolden those you know will come out and vote, and polarize the rest.

It worked like a charm, he is a 21st century snake oil salesman after all. And I would be surprised if he didnt have a Trump snake oil product.

Thorisgodpoo wrote:I don't deny anybody a right to an opinion. Even if it is one of such dangerously racist and misogynistic as the campaign has shown. I just believe people should be held accountable for their borderline hate speech.

Trump could be good, he could also be bad, all I know is that a lot of the low information voters looked at the fact it was someone with no experience ad an outsider, not the fact he will have inherent conflicts of interest with his business dealings as a billionaire.

I come from a working class background, have worked with them, know their opinions, and also have the fortune of working with the educated. Essentially, it came down to who would be more beneficial to the working class, and unfortunately Trump is that person, regardless of what his past business practices say about him.

This is also coming from someone who votes outside the two main parties.

Well, looking at the results and seeing Trump got roughly the same number of votes as the previous 3 Republicans, and a lower share of the overall vote than Romney lost with, if there are racist and misogynistic opinions at play, surely it's the millions of Democrats who'd vote for a black man but not a white woman?

Gibbon wrote:And yet only the other day he was re-affirming his intentions to either deport or incarcerate 2-3 million illegal immigrants.

I work in the field, & have done so for 25+ years, hence, I know a bit of "whereof I speak".

Criminal illegals are a whole different category than, "the people who are just here to do jobs Americans won't do." Those folks are either given a voluntary return (in which case they can still apply for legal admission), or simply returned at the border. If they choose to return without doing the former, they will end up prosecuted by the U.S. government.

When a case gets to our office, there are 2, 10, and 20 year maximum sentences, under Federal statutes. TO BE PROSECUTED CRIMINALLY, THE ILLEGAL ALIEN MUST HAVE A CRIMINAL CONVICTION HERE IN THE U.S...it is not just about being here without permission of the Attorney-General, or the Department of Homeland Security. The 2-year max's have only misdemeanor convictions, or other Illegal Re-Entry convictions. The 10-year max's must have a felony conviction here in the U.S. The 20-year max's must have an "aggravated" felony(ies), that must include crime of violence, firearms, or drug distribution offenses.

Most people do not know anything about the criminal justice workings involving an illegal population. By and large, people I go to church with, or ballgames, assume Uncle Sam is just after everybody illegal, the working poor. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the problem, Waco, is that Trump isn't using real stats; he's just plucking numbers out the air.

If you look at the report he's basing his plucked numbers from, you'll see he's actually referring to 1.9 million non U.S. citizens who have a criminal conviction in the U.S.A. Which is a substantially different thing from an illegal immigrant. They could be legal permanent residents of the U.S. or legal temporary visitors.

I doubt Trump really knows what it is, or where the problems are. Other than the obvious ones who commit murder or some high-profile crime. But, a Trump presidency will probably boost our numbers somewhat.

As you said earlier, there won't be a wall, or a repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act, or much of that. It will be interesting to see how much of his stuff gets enacted; Rep's run to the right, and govern to the center, it's nothing new. Even with Congress both being Rep. (I believe, the first time since 1928).

An old friend of mine used to be the Republican party chairman here in this county; he used to say, "you want to see the fastest conversion in the world? Send a conservative Republican to Washington, D.C., he'll become a moderate by the time he gets there."

Probably the first thing we see from a Trump administration, is some kind of tax relief. Rep's run on it, and get reelected on it, so that will probably happen rather quickly.

What's your take on Trump's conflicts of interest with his businesses? While past presidents have liquidated assets or converted them to bonds, he doesn't seem willing to do more than let his family run things during his term...and the last I read was that he was bringing his family into his inner circle of government.

WacoRover wrote:I doubt Trump really knows what it is, or where the problems are. Other than the obvious ones who commit murder or some high-profile crime. But, a Trump presidency will probably boost our numbers somewhat.

As you said earlier, there won't be a wall, or a repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act, or much of that. It will be interesting to see how much of his stuff gets enacted; Rep's run to the right, and govern to the center, it's nothing new. Even with Congress both being Rep. (I believe, the first time since 1928).

An old friend of mine used to be the Republican party chairman here in this county; he used to say, "you want to see the fastest conversion in the world? Send a conservative Republican to Washington, D.C., he'll become a moderate by the time he gets there."

Probably the first thing we see from a Trump administration, is some kind of tax relief. Rep's run on it, and get reelected on it, so that will probably happen rather quickly.

Gibbon wrote:What's your take on Trump's conflicts of interest with his businesses? While past presidents have liquidated assets or converted them to bonds, he doesn't seem willing to do more than let his family run things during his term...and the last I read was that he was bringing his family into his inner circle of government.

I honestly don't see how the man can be POTUS, and have as many business interests as he has. He loves it, and I cannot see him totally distancing himself from that (imagine the job his press secretary & call-screeners will have!) It's never happened before; so, we'll see. They're already taking his name off everything in Manhattan...that should take awhile!

A Trump presidency is unlike anything that has ever happened here, as all of our POTUS's have been lawyers/politicians first. The only differences being George Washington, Zachary Taylor, Grant, & Ike (all career-soldiers). Lincoln was a soldier, but definitely a lawyer/politician first. Ditto's with TJR, Harrison, Carter, JFK & Bush. Reagan was prez of the Screen Actor's Guild & an actor (albeit, a b-grade one). I would categorize Reagan as a politician-first.

I am a Southerner, and I hate William T. Sherman for "shermanizing" the South, but I admire him for one thing- when asked to run for POTUS, he replied, "if nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve." I think McArthur said basically the same thing.

I agree with mrblackbat, that Trump could simply get tired of being POTUS. He clearly hates having the media buzzing around him all the time, but he's done it for years. He's got to endure it for 4 more years & 2 months- when at age 74, he's sure to be more caustic and crotchety than he is now.

I'm not saying a Trump presidency is going to be a rip-roaring success, but it's nice having a POTUS who is not a politician for a change.

Interesting one this - puts a spoke in the wheel of the Trump is a Kremlin stooge theory (although if he really was their lapdog it would be easy to bomb Assad's enemies and everyone to play ball... ). Also raises some of my bigger fears about Trumps presidency... that we have a unthinking/uncaring trigger happy president in charge of the worlds most devastating army.